Expro Gulf Ltd. vs Union of India and Others

Alok Singh, J.—Since, in all these writ petitions identical questions of facts and law are involved, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and are being decided by this common judgment. By way of present petitions, the petitioner is assailing the notification dt. 1st Nov., 2013 (Annex. A to the writ petition) [(2013) 95 DTR (St) 8 : (2013) 263 CTR (St) 8], mainly on the ground that "Cyprus" ought not to have been declared as notified jurisdictional area in view of international treaty between Government of India and Government of Cyprus. It is argued by Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per art. 28 of the treaty, the Contracting States are bound to exchange such information (including documents) as is necessary for carrying out the provisions of the Agreement or of the domestic laws of the Contracting States concerning taxes covered by the Agreement. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the very basis of issuing the impugned notification dt. 1st Nov., 2013 that Government of Cyprus is not cooperating with the Government of India and, despite several requests, not supplying the information sought by the authorities of Government of India, on the face of it, is wrong in view of the Press Release made by the Cyprus authorities that they have never denied any information and they had been ready and willing to supply the information sought by the Government of India.

Bare perusal of the notification dt. 1st Nov., 2013 would reveal that Cyprus has not been providing the information as requested by the Indian authorities under the provisions of Exchange of Information Agreement, therefore, Government of India has decided to notify Cyprus as notified jurisdictional area under s. 94A of the IT Act.

While exercising the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily should not proceed to look into as to whether informations sought by the Indian authorities were ever declined by the Government of Cyprus or Government of Cyprus is ready and willing to supply the informations sought by the Indian authorities. Moreover, there seems to be no valid reason to disbelieve the satisfaction so recorded by the Indian authorities. Consequently, petitions fail for relief No. (a).

In the present writ petitions, petitioner is also challenging revised certificate dt. 12th Dec, 2014 passed by the IT authorities. Undisputedly, IT authorities are competent under s. 154 of the IT Act to revise earlier orders passed, even suo motu, if any illegality or irregularity is observed therein, at the subsequent stage. Undisputedly, all orders passed under s. 154 of the Act can be assailed in statutory appeals.

Since, alternative remedy of statutory appeal is available to the petitioner to challenge the revised certificate dt. 12th Dec, 2014, therefore, I am not inclined to invoke my writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that appellate forum shall be approached within ten days from today.

Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the IT Department/respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submits that in case appeals are preferred against the revised certificates, same shall be disposed of in accordance with law without any undue delay. Consequently, all the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. All the CLMAs also stand disposed of accordingly.